Help:Edit warring
An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than trying to resolve the disagreement by discussion. Edit warring is unconstructive and creates animosity between editors, making it harder to reach a consensus. Users who engage in edit wars risk being blocked. There is a bright line known as the three-revert rule (3RR). A revert means undoing the actions of another editor. The 3RR says an editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, on a single page within a 24-hour period. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. There are certain exemptions to 3RR, such as reverting vandalism; see for details. The three revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly, but it is not a definition of what "edit warring" means, and it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three revert rule, or even coming close to doing so. What edit warring is Not every revert or controversial edit is regarded as edit warring: *FusionFall Fannon Wiki encourages editors to be bold. A potentially controversial change may be made to find out whether it is opposed. Another editor may revert it. This is known as the bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. An edit war only arises if the situation develops into a series of back-and-forth reverts. *Reverting vandalism is not edit warring, but note that merely editing from a slanted point of view, general insertion or removal of material, or other good-faith changes, are not considered vandalism. *Reverting to enforce certain overriding policies is not considered edit warring. When reverting, be sure to indicate your reasons. This can be done in the edit summary and/or talk page. The three-revert rule Editors who engage in edit warring are liable to be blocked from editing to prevent further disruption. While any edit warring may lead to sanctions, there is a bright-line rule called the three-revert rule (3RR), the violation of which often leads to a block. The three-revert rule states: An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of the rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See below for exemptions. A "page" means any page on the FusionFall Fannon Wiki, including talk and project space. A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material. It can involve as little as one word. A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert. The three-revert rule applies per person, not per account; reverts made by multiple accounts operated by one editor count together. Editors violating 3RR will usually be blocked for 24 hours for a first incident. Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behaviour constitutes edit warring. The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times. If an editor violates 3RR by mistake, they should reverse their own most recent reversion. Administrators may take this into account and decide not to block in such cases—for example if the user is not an habitual edit warrior and is genuinely trying to rectify their own mistake. 3RR exemptions The following actions are not counted as reverts for the purposes of 3RR: *Reverting your own actions ("self-reverting"). *Reverting edits to pages in your own user space. *Reverting obvious vandalism—edits that any well-intentioned user would agree constitute vandalism, such as page blanking and adding offensive language. *Removal of clear copyright violations. If you are claiming an exemption, make sure there is a clearly visible edit summary or separate section of the talk page that explains the exemption. When in doubt, do not revert. Handling of edit warring behaviours What to do if you see edit warring behaviour It is better to seek help in addressing the issue than to engage in edit warring over it. When disagreement becomes apparent, one, both, or all participants should cease warring and try to discuss the issue on the talk page, or approach appropriate venues for help. Other alternative approaches recommended within the community are suggested below. If, despite trying, one or more users will not cease edit warring, refuse to work collaboratively or heed the information given to them, or will not move on to appropriate dispute resolution, then a request for administrative involvement is the norm. A warning is not required, but if the user appears unaware that edit warring is prohibited, they can be told about this policy by posting a link to this policy on their user talk page. How experienced editors avoid being dragged into edit wars In general, communication is the key to avoiding conflict. Once it is clear that there is a dispute, avoid relying solely on edit summaries and discuss the matter on the article's talk page. The primary venue for discussing the dispute should be the article talk page, which is where a reviewing admin will look for evidence of trying to settle the dispute. When discussion does not produce a conclusion, bringing wider attention to a dispute can lead to compromise. Neutral editors aware of the dispute will help curb egregious edits while also building consensus about the dispute. The bottom line: use common sense, and do not participate in edit wars. Rather than reverting repeatedly, discuss the matter with others; if a revert is necessary, another editor may conclude the same and do it (without you prompting them), which would then demonstrate consensus for the action. Administrator guidance Administrators decide whether to issue a warning or block; these are intended to prevent, deter and encourage change in disruptive behaviour, not to punish it. Where a block is appropriate, 24 hours is common for a first offence; administrators tend to issue longer blocks for repeated or aggravated violations, and will consider other factors, such as civility and previous blocks. Where multiple editors edit war or breach 3RR, administrators should consider all sides, since perceived unfairness can fuel issues.